disorderly conduct?

It seems to me I heard somewhere that RVer Don wrote in article
:

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding his shoe
and
hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand arresting someone for
having sex in public, but arresting someone for waving his hand sounds
more
like harrassment.

Or entrapment. With a good attorney he might have had the charges dropped
if he hadn't decided to plead guilty thinking the whole thing would go away.

Entrapment depends on the government agent doing something overt which
causes the accused to perform an illegal act he would not otherwise have
done of his own volition.

Setting the trap and waiting for the accused to enter it is a sting, not
entrapment, and is used regularly in drug, fraud, and morals
enforcement.
--
Don Kirkman

"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Calif Bill" wrote:


Several cities in the San Francisco Area are attempting to ban smoking in
a
detached home if a minor lives there.

What they attempt to do and what they succeed in doing are not always
the same thing.

Attempt to bust someone for soliciting sex by tapping their foot, seems far
fetched also.

"Hatunen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 23:06:00 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Most state constitutions are patterned on the US constitution.

In what way? They generally specify the state will have
judicial-executive-legislative separation of powers and two
houses of the legislature (save Nebraska), but other than that
they don't look much like the US constitution.

See, for instance, the table of contents for the Califonia
constitution at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const-toc.html which
goes into a great deal of detail compared to the federal
constitution.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

California constitution was originally patterned after the federal
constitution. Just that we have ammended the state constitution for
everything. I think it is now about 17,000 pages.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mikey wrote:
PeterL wrote in
ups.com:
You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one
should
bother you?

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding
his
shoe and hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand
arresting someone for having sex in public, but arresting someone
for
waving his hand sounds more like harrassment.

Not just "sliding his shoe along the edge of the stall", sliding it
_under_ and trying to play footsie with the cop.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



And footsie is public sex?

Footsie with someone who doesn't want to play footsie is at the very
least harassment. The charges were "gross misdemeanor interference to
privacy" and "disorderly conduct", he plead to "disorderly conduct"
and the court dismissed "interference to privacy". "Public sex" is
not an element of either offense.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




But it was the basis for the bust. Homosexual liaisons.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...
Can someone explain to me why sliding your hand along
the edge of a bathroom stall is a criminal offense

It's illegal to have sex in public places, including public rest
rooms, and it's also illegal to make sexual advances to someone
else
in a public rest room, since the intent is usually to have sex
there
in the public rest room.


So making a sexual advance in a public place is against the law?

There was no element of "sexual advance" in the charges.

Damn, amazing I did not go to jail for my years of chasing women in
bars during my early 20's. Arrested for what he was thinking
(maybe)
and not for an action. Maybe he was arranging a tryst, but they may
have gone to the Red Carpet room to make their version of the "beast
with two backs". You whistle at a good looking women, so you think
it is OK to be arrested for sexual advances in public!

In how many of those bars did you follow a woman into the bathroom,
peep into the stall to check her out, then sit down in the next stall
and try to play footsie with her?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



But sex was the basis for the bust! I guess if the cops bust someone, then
it is always true and the law must be good. People like your ilk are why we
are becoming a much less free country.

[Cyberglitch: Might be a duplicate. Sorry]

Mike V. wrote:
Can someone explain to me why sliding your hand along the edge of a bathroom stall is
a criminal offense, but offering to buy a woman a drink in a bar is not? I am a traveler
and just trying to understand USA law.

I can't resolve your query but please be aware that, other than the
Constitution, there is basically no "USA law".


Carole Allen wrote:
This was in public, not someone's private home.

It appears to have been in a private part of a public place, i.e., a
private toilet enclosure in a public facility.

If he wanted to bonk some guy all night in his home, the gov't
wouldn't care (unless he was in the deep south that is). His wife
might be a bit put out though.

Only if they kept her from joining them.

--
__________________________________________________ _________________
Jail to The Chief
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
TouringSFO: http://geocities.com/touringsfo/ - IClast @ Gmail.com

[Cyberglitch: Might be a duplicate. Sorry]

Sarah Banick wrote:
"Freedom" doesn't mean we can do anything we want anywhere.

Soliciting and performing aren't the same.

If you were the parent or grandparent of a 7-year-old, would you want him using the stall next door? What would you say if he ask you about it?

Boys will be boys.

("daddy, why were those two men in the same stall making those noises?")

Men will be men.

They need a signal for "meet me in room 365 at the Holiday Inn". That's legal.

That's what I meant about soliciting and performing. No harm done by
soliciting an elsewhere meeting. All one has to do is say "no" or
"yes". Big deal.


PeterL wrote:
You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one should bother you?

I think having sex in a public toilet is improper behaviour. Proper
behaviour in such places is ****in', ****tin', washin', and maybe a
bit o'groomin', activities for which they're designed and suitable.
Sex in automobiles is also improper as they're not designed to
accommodate the activity yet we sometimes must. The dif'rence is
they're not public facilities.

using a public toilet to allegedly solicit

That could be interpreted as protected speech.

and consumate sex acts crosses the line.

There I agree.


JamesS said:
It's illegal to have sex in public places

I've seen a couple having sex on the wait platform of the Powell
Street BART station and another on the lawn of a fast food joint in
Santa Monica near the Pacific Coast Highway.

It was the habit of a friend of mine to go down on her husband on the
way home in the back of the bus.

And then, of course, there's The Mile High Club.

I'm not saying it's not illegal. I'm saying it's done.

including public rest rooms and it's also illegal to make sexual
advances to someone else in a public rest room,

I see no harm in that.

since the intent is usually to have sex there in the public rest
room.

One cannot know that.

Where is there such a law?

--
__________________________________________________ _________________
George Bush is the best argument in favor of the Second Amendment
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ --- http://geocities.com/iconoc/
TouringSFO: http://geocities.com/touringsfo/ - IClast @ Gmail.com

it's also illegal to make sexual advances to someone else in a public rest room,
..
Where is there such a law?

The disorderly conduct laws in most areas contain wording like this...

"Every person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of
disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor:....[some text deleted]...(d) Who
loiters in or about any toilet open to the public for the purpose of
engaging in or soliciting any lewd or lascivious or any unlawful
act..."

Note that it's not necessary to engage in the act to violate the law;
"soliciting" (making sexual advances) is sufficient.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Shawn Hirn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Calif Bill" wrote:


Several cities in the San Francisco Area are attempting to ban
smoking in a
detached home if a minor lives there.

What they attempt to do and what they succeed in doing are not
always
the same thing.

Attempt to bust someone for soliciting sex by tapping their foot,
seems far fetched also.

Please be kind enough to show me where the words "solicit" and/or
"sex" appear in the charges levied.

And why are you focussing on "tapping their foot" and ignoring
"peeping into the crack"?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Calif Bill wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Mikey wrote:
PeterL wrote in
ups.com:
You mean you can go to a public toilet to have sex and no one
should
bother you?

He was not arrested for having sex. He was arrested for sliding
his
shoe and hand along the edge of the stall. I can understand
arresting someone for having sex in public, but arresting
someone
for
waving his hand sounds more like harrassment.

Not just "sliding his shoe along the edge of the stall", sliding
it
_under_ and trying to play footsie with the cop.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)



And footsie is public sex?

Footsie with someone who doesn't want to play footsie is at the
very
least harassment. The charges were "gross misdemeanor interference
to privacy" and "disorderly conduct", he plead to "disorderly
conduct" and the court dismissed "interference to privacy".
"Public
sex" is not an element of either offense.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)




But it was the basis for the bust. Homosexual liaisons.

Neither homesexuality nor "liaisons" were an element of the charges
levied.

I guess it's cool with you that some moron goes around peeping into
bathroom stalls and playing footsie with some poor ******* who's just
trying to take a crap in peace.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)